Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

LCA Tejas Multirole Aircraft

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by Dark_Prince, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    One aspect which most members have failed to notice is that First stage of Kaveri upgrade is 65Kn dry and 98Kn wet. The important point is 65Kn dry. This dry thrust is about 10% higher than what is needed for LCA Mk1A. This will make LCA supercruise.
     
  2. HariPrasad

    HariPrasad Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    621
    Country Flag:
    India
    And MTOW will increase to 16.25 tons. With MK1 weighing 6 ton and fuel increased to 3 tons, this engine will give tejas a phenomenal weight carrying capability of 7 ton+ subject to structural capability and exceptional T/W ration simply unmatched by any other plane of its class.
     
  3. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    exactly. with 65Kn dry, using my formula of dry thrust x 2.5, you can calculate the revised possible MTOW of LCA Mk1A. There is no need to waste time and resources on Mk2 version.
     
    zebra7 and Shekhar Singh like this.
  4. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    =>
    http://indiandefence.com/threads/lca-tejas-multirole-aircraft.93/page-640#post-600939
     
  5. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    And that remains to be nonsense, because the difference is not just more power, but...

    - larger nose diameter for more powerful radar

    - more space in front of the cockpit for IRST

    - more internal space to integrated EWS with RWR, MAWS, LWR and jammer (LCA has only RWR)

    - more internal space to add more fuel

    - additional hardpoints that makes it possible to carry higher weapon loads ( 2 x 2000lb bombs, vs 1 on LCA)

    - most likely no size limitations at the centerline station anymore (although even Gripen C/D had advantages over LCA there)

    All these are advantages of medium class fighters, be it in size or load capabilities. So no matter what, Tejas remains, what it always was meant to be, a light class fighter!
     
  6. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    can u list out the likely changes to Mk1A? Don't you think that these issues can be resolved vd minor modifications to the main gear and bottom fuselage?
     
    zebra7, HariPrasad and Shekhar Singh like this.
  7. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    =>

    http://indiandefence.com/threads/lca-tejas-multirole-aircraft.93/page-640#post-600939

    No they can't, because moving the gears is not a minor modification, but a major one as Gripen NG or even NLCA showed.
    MK2 already needs a credible design change, just to implement more avionics and a larger engine, changing the hardpoints or wings, means a complete new design, which only shows that it was badly designed from the start, with too much focus on a small size (smallest fighter in it's class!) and too little on future capabilities and upgradability. Btw, the small size has nothing to do with Mig 21 hangars as you stated before either, since even the Mig is larger and comparable to Gripen for example.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2017
  8. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    do you know why it was a problem for N-LCA and wont be a problem for LCA K1A?
     
    HariPrasad and Shekhar Singh like this.
  9. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    I know why it was a problem for NLCA and for Gripen NG, because both fighters needed to re-design their gears. NLCA for carrier landings and NG because of the new position under the wings.
    So if LCA would make similar changes, you have to re-design the gear again and face the same problems.
     
  10. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    NLCA had a problem of wheel track due to Gear Restraining System width. so it needed a gear which cud extend not only down but also wide. But IAF version does not have this problem and same gear can be moved forward or backwards or attached differently.
     
  11. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    Just that moving the gear forward or backward doesn't change anything for the space limitations of the centerline station, nor add space for more hardpoints. Instead you need to position the gear bays outwards under the wing, to increase space under the fuselage.

    LCA gear extracts under the fuselage, with the bay doors towards the centerline station limiting size of payloads:
    [​IMG]

    NLCA gear extracts under the wings, but the bay doors still towards the centerline station limiting the size of payloads:
    [​IMG]

    Gripen C/D gear extracts under the fuselage, with the bay doors towards the centerline station like LCA, but since the inner doors are smaller, which offers more space for a 1100l fuel tank or larger recon pods for example:
    [​IMG]

    Gripen NG/E gear extracts under the wings, bay moved with the inner doors extracting outwards, opening space under the fuselage for more hardpoints and possibly larger payloads (needs to be proven):
    [​IMG]

    Not to forget that the small length of LCA also limits payload length at the centerline.
     
  12. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    If you know how CG varies with gear, you will know that it is easy. The same gear at the same place can be attached upwards or hinged out to create space for two or more stations. Regarding the length, it makes no difference as long as the CG does not move much and sufficient length available between the main gears. Here we are talking of BVRAAMs with a length less than four meters. The 750ltr D/T itself is more than five meters long. We may not be able to put three BVRAAMs but two are definitely possible. Moreover, I had written to DRDO to move the gun behind the nose gear and change the nose gear retraction to that of Mig-21 as now we do not have an NLCA version requiring CAT launch ability. We do not need the nose gear to be extended from behind, it can be retracted from the nose gear bay itself. This frees up over one meter behind nose gear. The present position of Gun can THAN BE USED FOR 9TH PYLON. Eight and nineth pylon can be exclusively earmarked for BVRAAMs only. No pilot ever goes to combat with D/Ts attached, they are dropped as you join the merge. So if the pilot needs to use his gun, he can do it easily without the fear of ejected shell casings hitting anything behind.
    With just changing the gun position and nose retraction system, LCA will be able to carry more missiles and armament than Gripen NG. Three Meteors on three pylons on the fuselage, two D/Ts on inner pylons and 8xSPICE250/SDBs on mid pylons and 2xWVRAAMs on outer pylons. A load out similar to Gripen NG but with much better TWR and overall combat capability. There will be no need to redesign the main gear.
     
    BON PLAN, randomradio, zebra7 and 3 others like this.
  13. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    I had aslo suggested to them that the boundary layer bleed of duct on top of the fuselage be done away with and it be replaced with a cut out between the intakes and wings.
    upload_2017-11-9_20-5-50.png
    This will allow additional 100 ltrs of fuel space and allow for CFTs to be fitted easily. If they can have CFTs on LCA, it will turn into a beast compared to Gripen NG and F-16 blk70.
    BTW, LCA has one of the biggest noses of any SE fighter aircraft even designed. So your theory of not enough space for IRST falls flat. With AESA, we will get a smaller radar for higher range and that means that the radar can be pused further up creating space for IRST/FSO.
     
    BON PLAN, randomradio, zebra7 and 2 others like this.
  14. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    Wrong, because the payload length to the front is limited by the front gear and to the rear for ground clearance during take off. That's why LCA can't carry a similar 1100l fuel tank on the centerline line, like Gripen.

    The rest is pure fantasy, but it should be clear now, that you are highly mistaken about the MK1A performance and the required changes needed for LCA to be similar to the Gripen NG/E.

    There is no need to make up stuff and make more out of Tejas just out of pride. All it needs, is to fix it's problems and be a decent light class fighter and even that requires enough changes.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2017
  15. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461

Share This Page